Because Malacañang gave a rejoinder the other day.
Palace spokespersons stressed that : The President had already said (in an early speech, after he skipped the arrival honors) that he was responsible for the Mamasapano operation.
To be fair: Yes, he said something to the effect that “bilang ama ng bayan… dadalhin ko buong buhay ko ang nangyaring ito”, or some such statement (roughly, “i would carry with me throughout my life, with a heavy heart, the fact that many died in this operation…”).
Yes, he did say that.
In about three lines of his third prepared speech.
In contrast however, in ALL his other statements, messages, and speeches he blamed Napeñas (in a private meeting with legislators, he blamed Purisima).
About 80 per cent of the time, it was:
Napeñas, Napeñas, Napeñas,
and 10 per cent of the time:
If you want to be empirical about this, you could commission a couple of students to make a content- analysis, quantitative and qualitative, and pictograph the data for Malacañang’s appreciation. (Just give a mini-grant for the trouble of making a line-by-line analysis of all the nationwide televised addresses, dialogs, interviews, speeches.)
Or you could just examine the Pulse Asia poll where 8 out of 10 Filipinos said that they were not satisfied with PNoy’s explanation for the deadly and deathly Mamasapano operation.
Sure, the President could detail the operational mistakes of Purisima and Napeñas.
But the intent people are looking for, in words and in decisive action — a standard line of many world-class leaders who have the courage to own up to their decisions, is: “I take full responsibility for this…i take full responsibility ” (to begin and end every message he makes where he might detail the mistakes of his subordinates).
(my nephew is even more forthright when he corrects errors without being prodded by a Board of Inquiry: “My bad. Here it is.” ) That’s it, tapós, end of story.